Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
Eric, take a look at this: http://www.google.ca/trends/explore#q=lenr%2C%20andrea%20rossi%2C%20e-catcmpt=q If we decide the report is fully credible and those graphs make historical highs, I think that's a good time to short. On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Start shorting any of the alt energy plays. The challenge with short selling is when to start? Immediately? A few weeks or months after news of cold fusion is starting to spread? (Note that rumors already appear to be circulating, e.g., in connection with the X Prize.) A year or two after? If one starts a short sale too early, it will be the cause of much sadness. Eric
Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
If we decide Exactly how is that supposed to play out in your mind? And note that you overlook (so far) entirely the mechanics how-to's of shorting oil, Exxon, Solar, or anything else. It has been posted before, on your own thread... that you have abandoned. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg93568.html Are you here to obfuscate? Are you here to make a buck on fellow vorticians? Why did you abandon the previous thread on Vortex that covered most of the same ground? Why did you offer 10:1 odds when you first arrived and now you're at 2:1 odds which is about the same as any ordinary technical project? What are you trying to establish? On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Eric, take a look at this: http://www.google.ca/trends/explore#q=lenr%2C%20andrea%20rossi%2C%20e-catcmpt=q If we decide the report is fully credible and those graphs make historical highs, I think that's a good time to short. On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Start shorting any of the alt energy plays. The challenge with short selling is when to start? Immediately? A few weeks or months after news of cold fusion is starting to spread? (Note that rumors already appear to be circulating, e.g., in connection with the X Prize.) A year or two after? If one starts a short sale too early, it will be the cause of much sadness. Eric
Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
Ok sure, not really we, but rather vortex. There's a group of folks of vortex that I feel are fairly credible / not gullible. They reacted very smartly to defkalion, so I'll be looking to their reaction to this report carefully. They have a track record of being correct which is what bayesian analysis relies on. I've shorted stocks in my time. I'm pretty familiar with the strategy mechanics of buying put options, for example. On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: If we decide Exactly how is that supposed to play out in your mind? And note that you overlook (so far) entirely the mechanics how-to's of shorting oil, Exxon, Solar, or anything else. It has been posted before, on your own thread... that you have abandoned. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg93568.html Are you here to obfuscate? Are you here to make a buck on fellow vorticians? Why did you abandon the previous thread on Vortex that covered most of the same ground? Why did you offer 10:1 odds when you first arrived and now you're at 2:1 odds which is about the same as any ordinary technical project? What are you trying to establish? On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Eric, take a look at this: http://www.google.ca/trends/explore#q=lenr%2C%20andrea%20rossi%2C%20e-catcmpt=q If we decide the report is fully credible and those graphs make historical highs, I think that's a good time to short. On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Start shorting any of the alt energy plays. The challenge with short selling is when to start? Immediately? A few weeks or months after news of cold fusion is starting to spread? (Note that rumors already appear to be circulating, e.g., in connection with the X Prize.) A year or two after? If one starts a short sale too early, it will be the cause of much sadness. Eric
Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
You've been trying to milk Vortex members since you first arrived. Otherwise, you would have explained how to short long ago. Not only did you shy away from your original 10:1 odds that I jumped at, but you haven't done anything to further vortician interests since you've been aboard. Otherwise, you'd have gone to your original thread and answered every contention put towards you. You won't do that on that thread, you won't do it on this thread, you won't do it here nor there. You won't do it anywhere, BlazeIam. On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Ok sure, not really we, but rather vortex. There's a group of folks of vortex that I feel are fairly credible / not gullible. They reacted very smartly to defkalion, so I'll be looking to their reaction to this report carefully. They have a track record of being correct which is what bayesian analysis relies on. I've shorted stocks in my time. I'm pretty familiar with the strategy mechanics of buying put options, for example. On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: If we decide Exactly how is that supposed to play out in your mind? And note that you overlook (so far) entirely the mechanics how-to's of shorting oil, Exxon, Solar, or anything else. It has been posted before, on your own thread... that you have abandoned. http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg93568.html Are you here to obfuscate? Are you here to make a buck on fellow vorticians? Why did you abandon the previous thread on Vortex that covered most of the same ground? Why did you offer 10:1 odds when you first arrived and now you're at 2:1 odds which is about the same as any ordinary technical project? What are you trying to establish? On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Eric, take a look at this: http://www.google.ca/trends/explore#q=lenr%2C%20andrea%20rossi%2C%20e-catcmpt=q If we decide the report is fully credible and those graphs make historical highs, I think that's a good time to short. On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Start shorting any of the alt energy plays. The challenge with short selling is when to start? Immediately? A few weeks or months after news of cold fusion is starting to spread? (Note that rumors already appear to be circulating, e.g., in connection with the X Prize.) A year or two after? If one starts a short sale too early, it will be the cause of much sadness. Eric
[Vo]:what would our much regretted friends say about CF today?
This is an appeal to my readers- can you help me in analyzing and predicting what will happen to/in/with our Field. Just now, hope comes only from outside classic CF. This time I hope to have many answers from you, I dare to think that you still CARE. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Looks like I'll need to revise my estimate downwards, YET AGAIN, that Blaze will pull it out. Down to 7.88%. Nuh-uh. It is 7.64%. You forgot to take into account the Coriolis effect on this year's election cycle. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Looks like I'll need to revise my estimate downwards, YET AGAIN, that Blaze will pull it out. Down to 7.88%. Nuh-uh. It is 7.64%. You forgot to take into account the Coriolis effect on this year's election cycle. I think you rounded up when you should have rounded down. I get 7.63%. ;-)
Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Nuh-uh. It is 7.64%. You forgot to take into account the Coriolis effect on this year's election cycle. I think you rounded up when you should have rounded down. I get 7.63%. ;-) You must be in Australia. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
Are you here to make a buck on fellow vorticians? Yes, but I'd like to think everyone here can share in the wealth if they were paying attention. Certainly they deserve it. Some people though, I guesss, for whatever bizarre reasons I'll never understand - profoundly believe they don't deserve it. On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Nuh-uh. It is 7.64%. You forgot to take into account the Coriolis effect on this year's election cycle. I think you rounded up when you should have rounded down. I get 7.63%. ;-) You must be in Australia. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:BlackLight's Second Test of Automated Ignition System
The test in question, lighting an array of LEDs is trivial and *proves* nothing significant because the power required is trivial. It is a partial answer to critics who want to see continuous power output and not *apparently* fantastic claims based on pulse phenomena. The peak power in an ordinary flashtube is also significant for a millisecond or so. Same for the LED ‘flash’ in some cell phone cameras. The reaction BLP is now dealing with is inherently explosive; the trick is build a device that will deliver 1000 explosion per second and capture that energy efficiently with high performance solar cells, for which there is commercial precedent. IC engines deal with a series of explosions. Mills’ claims for pulse energy are remarkable but are consistent with wit published science. BLP’s task is now engineering a device for which there is no direct precedent but game-changing prospects. Mike Carrell From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 2:09 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:BlackLight's Second Test of Automated Ignition System I agree.. Conclusion? Lenart On May 29, 2014 9:11 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The amount of time and mental enegy required to absorb Mills technology is very substantial. Is it real or is it a fantasy? Who can be a judge? The perspective student of this course of study must be convinced that this substantial effort is not made in vain. BLP is like a company who has not made a profit in 20 years. An investor must see some upturn in the prospects of BLP before he makes an investment in that endeavor. When Mills puts an energy device in service so that his technology replaces the oil and gas industry, then many people will decide to make the investment in Mills technology. The same is true for all the developers of unconventional energy generation. The first few of these developers who successfully field a technology verified by a vigorous market for their product will generate all the interest required to drive forward the new paradigm. Success is the key to everything. On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Mike Carrell mi...@medleas.com wrote: I have posted to Vo and CNMS a series of notes under the general heading of ‘understanding BLP’ which have been generally ignored. The post below illustrates a basic problem, that these commentators have simply not done their homework well enough to evaluate what is really going on and the difficulties that Mills has faced for decades in finding a commercially viable device or system to utilize his discoveries. Without the homework, the claims and demonstrations will be misunderstood. I have followed Mills for decades and am willing to enter a dialogue with anyone who really wants to understand. There is a “society for Classical Physics”, moderated by Dr. John Farrell, an early mentor and associate of Mills. Mills actively participates in the discussion with terse comments and references to his published work. I am gratified by the quality of the questions asked, and Mills’ courteous replies. Basically, he is proceeding in incremental steps toward the device now portrayed in the website. Much depends on exactly what happens in the detonation, which will be found by careful experiment which is seen the video clips. There will be technical papers posted at appropriate intervals, as Mills has done for decades. Mike Carrell From: Foks0904 . [mailto:foks0...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 12:54 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:BlackLight's Second Test of Automated Ignition System I've never thought Mills is running a confidence game. But I've been critical of BLP because it's perplexing as hell why they have had such issues getting into the public marketplace for over twenty years. They have had issues with patent office in past, etc. but I don't know how far railroading goes in explaining it. I've speculated perhaps they are contracting out their devices with non-consumer partners or something, but then why bother w/ public demos and videos like this? Shrug. On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: What I don't get is how this footage would impress anyone. Perhaps my lack of appreciation is due to my lack of knowledge. No doubt if you're an expert at microcalorimetry and allied fields, you would know, on the basis of your extensive experience, merely from seeing and hearing this footage, that they are competent people and really have something and are not trying to play a confidence game. Eric On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vh88aVr6i8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vh88aVr6i8feature=youtu.be feature=youtu.be R. Mills is answering questions This Email has been scanned for
Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: If we decide the report is fully credible and those graphs make historical highs, I think that's a good time to short. I'm less confident on getting the timing right for a breakout development than you. Even if we saw a spike of interest comparable to the one shown for the first Elforsk test, I very much doubt there will be more publicity following upon it than happened the last time. Even if the test results are stellar, I do not think they would cause a movement in the oil markets at this point. If I had to guess, there would need to be three or four credible, completely independent reproductions that were given high degree of visibility in the mainstream media before cold fusion is even sufficiently funded. And then only after the implications of the new technology became apparent to risk-averse pension managers would you start to see some kind of downward movement in oil stocks. Just my random, uninformed guess. Only indirectly relevant to this, there is word that Rossi has been seen in Sweden. This isn't necessarily a positive development, although it could be benign. What if the E-Cat became quiescent at some point, and he was there to try to kickstart it again? Eric
Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Some people though, I guesss, for whatever bizarre reasons I'll never understand - profoundly believe they don't deserve it. Goodness gracious! Who do you have in mind? Tell them to send me their share of the moola. When they gave Martin Fleischmann a medal at an ICCF conference, he turned to me and said something like: this is the only recognition I have ever gotten out of cold fusion, other than a swift kick in the butt. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I'm less confident on getting the timing right for a breakout development than you. Even if we saw a spike of interest comparable to the one shown for the first Elforsk test, I very much doubt there will be more publicity following upon it than happened the last time. I agree. I doubt that ELFORSK wants people to know, other than the small circle of people who follow this field. I doubt they will keep the paper secret. They probably couldn't; it would leak. I expect them to publish at arXiv again. Even if the test results are stellar, I do not think they would cause a movement in the oil markets at this point. If stellar results could have any effect on public opinion or industry, the whole world would have believed in cold fusion after McKubre published. Experts such as Gerisher and later Duncan looked at the data and were instantly convinced. Fully replicated, high sigma, top quality experimental proof from hundreds of world class laboratories plus $18 will buy you a 30 Hershey Bars at Amazon.com. That is all it is good for. If I had to guess, there would need to be three or four credible, completely independent reproductions that were given high degree of visibility in the mainstream media before cold fusion is even sufficiently funded. The mainstream media would never publish any report, no matter how convincing. Not from ELFORSK, EPRI or any other power company organization. The physics establishment will say that power companies know nothing about nuclear physics so they must be wrong. The mass media will only report on what the physics establishment blesses. Other than that, the mass media would only report: 1. A famous mogul such as Bill Gates is funding cold fusion OR 2. A commercial cold fusion device has actually gone sale. Anything less newsworthy will never see the light of day. That does not matter much. We do not not need the mass media. What we need is money, from someone like Gates, and we need experiments that work. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
You are so right Jed. (not that it means anything from me) But remember the chain: Rossi - Tom Darden (Cherokee/IH) - Bill McDonough ( Cherokee/McDonough Challenge) -Larry Page, Richard Branson, Elon Musk, Jimmy Wales etc see: https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/HO64ew8KwyUfNz-RD63k69MTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0 So there is hope. Thanks to Frank Acland for re-digging that link. Regards. Patrick On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: I'm less confident on getting the timing right for a breakout development than you. Even if we saw a spike of interest comparable to the one shown for the first Elforsk test, I very much doubt there will be more publicity following upon it than happened the last time. I agree. I doubt that ELFORSK wants people to know, other than the small circle of people who follow this field. I doubt they will keep the paper secret. They probably couldn't; it would leak. I expect them to publish at arXiv again. Even if the test results are stellar, I do not think they would cause a movement in the oil markets at this point. If stellar results could have any effect on public opinion or industry, the whole world would have believed in cold fusion after McKubre published. Experts such as Gerisher and later Duncan looked at the data and were instantly convinced. Fully replicated, high sigma, top quality experimental proof from hundreds of world class laboratories plus $18 will buy you a 30 Hershey Bars at Amazon.com. That is all it is good for. If I had to guess, there would need to be three or four credible, completely independent reproductions that were given high degree of visibility in the mainstream media before cold fusion is even sufficiently funded. The mainstream media would never publish any report, no matter how convincing. Not from ELFORSK, EPRI or any other power company organization. The physics establishment will say that power companies know nothing about nuclear physics so they must be wrong. The mass media will only report on what the physics establishment blesses. Other than that, the mass media would only report: 1. A famous mogul such as Bill Gates is funding cold fusion OR 2. A commercial cold fusion device has actually gone sale. Anything less newsworthy will never see the light of day. That does not matter much. We do not not need the mass media. What we need is money, from someone like Gates, and we need experiments that work. - Jed -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com wrote: But remember the chain: Rossi - Tom Darden (Cherokee/IH) - Bill McDonough ( Cherokee/McDonough Challenge) -Larry Page, Richard Branson, Elon Musk, Jimmy Wales etc Yup. That is who I had in mind. So far there is nothing in the mass media. I suppose those people are keeping a low profile. That's fine with me. I want their money, not a mass media circus they might trigger. Jimmy Wales, yuch! The others are fine. Jimmy rubs me the wrong way. It would be ironic if he had a positive influence on this field, given all trouble Wikipedia has caused us. Make no mistake, it does cause trouble. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: If we decide the report is fully credible and those graphs make historical highs, I think that's a good time to short. I'm less confident on getting the timing right for a breakout development than you. Yes, there is always risk of course, profit without risk is not possible - but you can always reduce the risk through careful study. It's important to short before the market in general recognizes what's going on. I'm not looking to get in at the time of the breakout, just before the breakout and knowing that a breakout will come within 2 years. Considering there was no explosion of interest when the last results came in, I believe if there is one this time it will indicate real penetration.
Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
Here's a possible portfolio so far: FSLR Put Options (2 years): 60% XOM Put Options (2 years): 20% CPST: 10% CYPW: 10% Entry will occur on a combination of google trends and when these equities make coordinated movements that aren't influenced by other factors such as general market conditions.
Re: [Vo]:An emerging diproton plus halo hypothesis
I apologize for responding so tardily. But I have been in transit and outfitting for my summer/fall in Alaska. Jones-- The dimensions of the emitter associated with spin transitions in a nucleus or during nuclear magnetic momentum transitions does not have anything to do with the size of the nucleus. As robin points out the size of the wave length of the EM radiation does not depend upon the size of the emitting entity. I think it depends upon the differential energy between quantum states involved in the transition to a lower state.The geometry of course is involved in determination of the allowed states, but a typical dimension may not be apparent. That being said I think the halo concept is instructive in thinking about how energy states may change as a virtual particle changes to a stable ground state. I like to think of a virtual di-deuterium particle collapsing to a He particle in the Pd / Deuterium system. In fact the Cooper paring of two Deuterium atoms to form an excited virtual pair, starting out with antiparallel alignment each with high spin quantum number totaling a net of 0 of the target He ground state, may explain the energy fractionation that apparently occurs in small energy increments. Separately, I tend to agree with Robin that the need to try to combine the electric and gravitation forces is not warranted unless it is a consideration in a strong magnetic field to cause the paring to start. This may be more important in the Ni H system where a catalyst is needed--a Cooper pair of electrons or a di-proton. Of course a Pd system may also experience high magnetic fields and assistance in Cooper pairing. I am not sure that the restriction to one dimension in the strong magnetic field involves controlling the gravitational field as well. Bob From: Jones Beene Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2014 3:58 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com -Original Message- From: mix...@bigpond.com Why invoke electrogravity when the normal nuclear force will do just fine? Note that the neutrons in the deuterons are already within range of this force, as the deuteron is already bound. Yes, of course. That's the basic problem. The nucleus does not emit in the range which we need to match experimental results (or lack thereof). The problem with normal nuclear radiation is that it is very short wavelength - which is not seen in LENR experiments. Working backwards from a spectrum which could have escaped detection, we can hypothesize that there needs to be an emitter geometry which is large enough to emit EUV or x-rays and at the same time, to delay actual fusion until enough energy has been dumped. That requirement eliminates any normal nucleus. This gets into antenna theory. How can a femtometer particle emit ultraviolet? Typically it cannot as the geometry is way too disproportionate. Possibly a halo nucleus can do this, or maybe the halo is too small as well. If that is the case, then the rationalization (of any kind of stepwise release) is dead.
Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
Are you here to make a buck on fellow vorticians? Yes ***Then my criticism of you is justified.
Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
I want their money, not a mass media circus they might trigger. ***Jed, I like to think you are probably one of the few that will financially benefit from such a mass media circus. On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Patrick Ellul ellulpatr...@gmail.com wrote: But remember the chain: Rossi - Tom Darden (Cherokee/IH) - Bill McDonough ( Cherokee/McDonough Challenge) -Larry Page, Richard Branson, Elon Musk, Jimmy Wales etc Yup. That is who I had in mind. So far there is nothing in the mass media. I suppose those people are keeping a low profile. That's fine with me. I want their money, not a mass media circus they might trigger. Jimmy Wales, yuch! The others are fine. Jimmy rubs me the wrong way. It would be ironic if he had a positive influence on this field, given all trouble Wikipedia has caused us. Make no mistake, it does cause trouble. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
Interesting portfolio. There's a couple of hitches in yer giddyup. FSLR Put Options (2 years): 60% XOM Put Options (2 years): 20% ***I dunno how to do put options, and if the breakout comes in 2 years + 1 day, you lost everything without the benefit of what you were actually betting on. CPST: 10% ***Reasonably healthy penny stock that should be reasonably healthy in 2 years + 1 day. CYPW: 10% ***Unhealthy penny stock due to development money starvation. In the past it has seen a 100x spike based upon conventional news. Dr. Yeong Kim consults with them. If this black swan event does not happen in 2 years, this company probably will be bankrupt unless it can produce a reliable engine. My approach has been 100% CYPW, but that's based upon the prior research I did, some personal deadlines, and not knowing about CPST. My recommendation for Vorticians is a less risky approach of 60% CPST, 20% CYPW , and 20% whatever else presents itself as an opportunity such as publicly traded companies that sell desalination plants. On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Here's a possible portfolio so far: FSLR Put Options (2 years): 60% XOM Put Options (2 years): 20% CPST: 10% CYPW: 10% Entry will occur on a combination of google trends and when these equities make coordinated movements that aren't influenced by other factors such as general market conditions.
Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
I'm going to remove CPST from the portfolio. They are in bed with the oil gas industry. I think they will piss off their customers if they jump on CF. FSLR Put Options (2 years): 50% XOM Put Options (2 years): 20% CYPW: 20% I agree we need to find more companies that make thermocouples and sterling type devices. On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Here's a possible portfolio so far: FSLR Put Options (2 years): 60% XOM Put Options (2 years): 20% CPST: 10% CYPW: 10% Entry will occur on a combination of google trends and when these equities make coordinated movements that aren't influenced by other factors such as general market conditions.
Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
CPST: 10% ***Reasonably healthy penny stock that should be reasonably healthy in 2 years + 1 day. CPST is listed on the nasdaq with a 496.52M market cap. They are not a penny stock. On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting portfolio. There's a couple of hitches in yer giddyup. FSLR Put Options (2 years): 60% XOM Put Options (2 years): 20% ***I dunno how to do put options, and if the breakout comes in 2 years + 1 day, you lost everything without the benefit of what you were actually betting on. CPST: 10% ***Reasonably healthy penny stock that should be reasonably healthy in 2 years + 1 day. CYPW: 10% ***Unhealthy penny stock due to development money starvation. In the past it has seen a 100x spike based upon conventional news. Dr. Yeong Kim consults with them. If this black swan event does not happen in 2 years, this company probably will be bankrupt unless it can produce a reliable engine. My approach has been 100% CYPW, but that's based upon the prior research I did, some personal deadlines, and not knowing about CPST. My recommendation for Vorticians is a less risky approach of 60% CPST, 20% CYPW , and 20% whatever else presents itself as an opportunity such as publicly traded companies that sell desalination plants. On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Here's a possible portfolio so far: FSLR Put Options (2 years): 60% XOM Put Options (2 years): 20% CPST: 10% CYPW: 10% Entry will occur on a combination of google trends and when these equities make coordinated movements that aren't influenced by other factors such as general market conditions.
Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
You're right, even better. They're trading at about $1.50/share. On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: CPST: 10% ***Reasonably healthy penny stock that should be reasonably healthy in 2 years + 1 day. CPST is listed on the nasdaq with a 496.52M market cap. They are not a penny stock. On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting portfolio. There's a couple of hitches in yer giddyup. FSLR Put Options (2 years): 60% XOM Put Options (2 years): 20% ***I dunno how to do put options, and if the breakout comes in 2 years + 1 day, you lost everything without the benefit of what you were actually betting on. CPST: 10% ***Reasonably healthy penny stock that should be reasonably healthy in 2 years + 1 day. CYPW: 10% ***Unhealthy penny stock due to development money starvation. In the past it has seen a 100x spike based upon conventional news. Dr. Yeong Kim consults with them. If this black swan event does not happen in 2 years, this company probably will be bankrupt unless it can produce a reliable engine. My approach has been 100% CYPW, but that's based upon the prior research I did, some personal deadlines, and not knowing about CPST. My recommendation for Vorticians is a less risky approach of 60% CPST, 20% CYPW , and 20% whatever else presents itself as an opportunity such as publicly traded companies that sell desalination plants. On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Here's a possible portfolio so far: FSLR Put Options (2 years): 60% XOM Put Options (2 years): 20% CPST: 10% CYPW: 10% Entry will occur on a combination of google trends and when these equities make coordinated movements that aren't influenced by other factors such as general market conditions.
Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
I don't think CPST will be pissing off their customers by jumping on CF when it breaks out. It will be their customers who will be pissing off the oil gas industry. When hard drive manufacturers started selling to PC vendors, they didn't stop selling to minicomputer vendors. They just stopped development in that area and focused on microcomputing needs. It wasn't about pissing off their customers, it was about their previous customers no longer funding their projects and the new ones moving faster taking what they could get. As a company, you either migrated with the sea change or you died. Simple disruptive technology issue. The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail (Management of Innovation and Change) by Clayton M. Christensen http://www.amazon.com/Clayton-M.-Christensen/e/B000APPD3Y/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1 (Author) http://www.amazon.com/The-Innovators-Dilemma-Technologies-Management/dp/142219602X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8qid=1401597910sr=8-2keywords=the+innovators+dilemma On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: I'm going to remove CPST from the portfolio. They are in bed with the oil gas industry. I think they will piss off their customers if they jump on CF. FSLR Put Options (2 years): 50% XOM Put Options (2 years): 20% CYPW: 20% I agree we need to find more companies that make thermocouples and sterling type devices. On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: Here's a possible portfolio so far: FSLR Put Options (2 years): 60% XOM Put Options (2 years): 20% CPST: 10% CYPW: 10% Entry will occur on a combination of google trends and when these equities make coordinated movements that aren't influenced by other factors such as general market conditions.
Re: [Vo]:what would our much regretted friends say about CF today?
Peter: I do not understand what you are asking. What is a much regretted friend? If it's predictions you're after, look at these 2 threads: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg93935.html http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg93531.html How does hope... only come from outside classic CF. Please elaborate with an emphasis on clarity. On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 3:08 AM, Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote: This is an appeal to my readers- can you help me in analyzing and predicting what will happen to/in/with our Field. Just now, hope comes only from outside classic CF. This time I hope to have many answers from you, I dare to think that you still CARE. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 12:18 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: CYPW: 10% ***Unhealthy penny stock due to development money starvation. In the past it has seen a 100x spike based upon conventional news. Dr. Yeong Kim consults with them. If this black swan event does not happen in 2 years, this company probably will be bankrupt unless it can produce a reliable engine. I don't think you can make a reliable engine which uses water as a lubricant.
Re: [Vo]:eCat Portfolio
Interesting point. I was not aware of that aspect of their development. Are they trying to be so oil-independent that they refuse to use it as a lubricant? That would be stupid. On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 12:18 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: CYPW: 10% ***Unhealthy penny stock due to development money starvation. In the past it has seen a 100x spike based upon conventional news. Dr. Yeong Kim consults with them. If this black swan event does not happen in 2 years, this company probably will be bankrupt unless it can produce a reliable engine. I don't think you can make a reliable engine which uses water as a lubricant.
Re: [Vo]:An emerging diproton plus halo hypothesis
In vacuum dynamics, it is important to get the chain of causation correct. The key in all this is to produce a huge magnetic field. In order to get a huge magnetic field, charge must be removed from the electrons that produce the spin that in turn will produce this magnetic field. Electric charge works against concentrating large numbers of electrons from being packed into a small compact volume. But fortunately for LENR, when electrons are confined from moving freely, they lose their charge due to movement accomplished exclusively by tunneling. These electrons being tightly confined only have spin now. These electrons can now be amassed in huge numbers. This electron packing will produce vortex motion as has been seen in type II superconductors. Light will combine with these electrons to produce surface plasmon polaritons. Polaritons are only formed under high electron density conditions. The polaritons can now project the huge magnetic fields required to energize the vacuum. When energy is pumped into the vacuum, virtual particle production goes way up. If the magnetic field is high enough, virtual P mesons (pions) will be produced. These pions will surely disrupt nuclear activity. But magnetic fields of lesser strength will still have LENR effects based on the increased production of virtual particles. Caused by increased magnetic fields, this accelerated virtual particle production will increase the decay rates of radioactive isotopes. One experiment demonstrated an increase in the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. I have referenced papers here to show how the confinement of electrons on the surface of gold nanoparticles: a nanoplasmonic mechanism can change the half-life of U232 from 69 years to 6 microseconds. It also causes thorium to fission. See references: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=sfrm=1source=webcd=1cad=rjasqi=2ved=0CC4QFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1112.6276ei=nI6UUeG1Fq-N0QGypIAgusg=AFQjCNFB59F1wkDv-NzeYg5TpnyZV1kpKQsig2=fhdWJ_enNKlLA4HboFBTUAbvm=bv.46471029,d.dmQ Experiments showing the same mechanism as listed below: Laser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid targets in heavy water http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0830 Initiation of nuclear reactions under laser irradiation of Au nanoparticles in the presence of Thorium aqua ions http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0906/0906.4268.pdf The existence of cooper pairs of protons in the Piantelli experiments shows that protons can also lose their charge through tight confinement. The destruction of positive charge through tunneling can be another of the many modes of LENR reaction. It is ironic that plasma physicists try to overcome the coulomb barrier in huge machines as big as sports stadiums but nanotechnologist can do this same job better by building nanowires in just the proper way to do that erstwhile daunting mission. No wonder why orthodox science cannot believe that these amazing feats can be so easily done in such a marvelously smarter way. On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: I apologize for responding so tardily. But I have been in transit and outfitting for my summer/fall in Alaska. Jones-- The dimensions of the emitter associated with spin transitions in a nucleus or during nuclear magnetic momentum transitions does not have anything to do with the size of the nucleus. As robin points out the size of the wave length of the EM radiation does not depend upon the size of the emitting entity. I think it depends upon the differential energy between quantum states involved in the transition to a lower state.The geometry of course is involved in determination of the allowed states, but a typical dimension may not be apparent. That being said I think the halo concept is instructive in thinking about how energy states may change as a virtual particle changes to a stable ground state. I like to think of a virtual di-deuterium particle collapsing to a He particle in the Pd / Deuterium system. In fact the Cooper paring of two Deuterium atoms to form an excited virtual pair, starting out with antiparallel alignment each with high spin quantum number totaling a net of 0 of the target He ground state, may explain the energy fractionation that apparently occurs in small energy increments. Separately, I tend to agree with Robin that the need to try to combine the electric and gravitation forces is not warranted unless it is a consideration in a strong magnetic field to cause the paring to start. This may be more important in the Ni H system where a catalyst is needed--a Cooper pair of electrons or a di-proton. Of course a Pd system may also experience high magnetic fields and assistance in Cooper pairing. I am not sure that the restriction to one dimension in the strong magnetic field involves controlling the gravitational field as
